MILES v. MACON STATE PRISON

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. It is therefore ORDERED that the instant Petition be DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner's right to file in the Eleventh Circuit a motion for leave to file a second or successive habeas petition pursuant to 2244(b)(3). Petitioner's motion for the appointment of an attorney #2 is DENIED as moot. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC T TREADWELL on 9/24/2024. (kat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MICHAEL NIKIETH MILES,

:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
VS.
:
:
MACON STATE PRISON WARDEN, :
:
Respondent.
:
________________________________ :

NO. 5:24-CV-00326-MTT-CHW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pro se Petitioner Michael Nikieth Miles, a prisoner at Macon State Prison in
Oglethorpe, Georgia, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 challenging his 1999 conviction in the Superior Court of Muscogee County,
Georgia. ECF No. 1. However, a review of this Court’s records reveals that Petitioner
has filed previous federal habeas corpus petitions challenging this same conviction. See
Miles v. Olens, Case No. 4:12-cv-00132-CDL (M.D. Ga. July 1, 2013) (dismissed
pursuant to § 2254(b) as untimely); Miles v. Smith, Case No. 4:23-cv-00059-CDL (M.D.
Ga. May 18, 2023) (dismissed as an impermissible successive petition).
“Before a second or successive application [for a writ of habeas corpus] is filed
in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an
order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)(A); see also Guenther v. Holt, 173 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir. 1999), cert.
denied, 528 U.S. 1085 (2000). The instant Petition is considered successive within the

meaning of § 2244(b). See, e.g., Leal Garcia v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 214, 222 (5th Cir.
2009) (noting that “[l]ater habeas petitions attacking the same judgment that was attacked in a
prior petition tend to be labeled successive and must meet the requirements for authorization
under § 2244”). It does not appear and Petitioner does not allege that he has received an
order from a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this
Court to consider a successive habeas petition for this conviction. 1 Without such an
order, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the successive claims. See §
2244(b)(3)(A); Gilreath v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 273 F.3d 932, 933–34 (11th
Cir. 2001) (per curiam).

It is therefore ORDERED that the instant Petition be

DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to file in the Eleventh Circuit a
motion for leave to file a second or successive habeas petition pursuant to § 2244(b)(3). 2
Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of an attorney (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 24th day of September, 2024.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

Indeed, Petitioner’s last request to file a second or successive petition was denied by the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals. In re: Michael N. Miles, No. 23-12124 (11th Cir. July 1, 2023).

“[A] dismissal of a successive habeas petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction does not constitute a
‘final order in a habeas proceeding’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) Instead, such a dismissal is a
‘final decision’ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and a [Certificate of Appealability] is thus ‘unnecessary’”.
Bolin v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 628 F. App’x 728, 730 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (quoting Hubbard
v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of successive habeas petition for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)). Accordingly, the Court will not address whether Petitioner has met the
standards for issuance of a Certificate of Appealability.

2

2